🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Movie leaves out or changes loads of the book.

K

kingronan

Guest
I've only started the Fellowship book and im just up to the Old Forest chapter. I saw the film and I noticed just how much was left out or changed from the book. Here are some mistakes I noticed
1: In the film Frodo and Sam meet up with Pippin and Merry just before farmer Maggots farm but in the book Pippin goes with them from the start and the meet up with Merry after the farm.
2: In the book Maggot wecomes them into the house and feeds them and stuff but in the film he just chases them and you can only see his sythe.
3: The film does not show Frodo and the other hobbits who go with him in the house at Crickhollow with Fatty.
4: In the movie they are chased onto the ferry by a Black Rider but in the book they are on the ferry half way to the other side when they spot a figure.
5: The Movie shows nothing of the High Elves and Gildor meeting with the hobbits.
6: The book tells nothing of the hobbits stealing any of Gandalf's fireworks at the party.
These are just some of the mistaks i notice and I think that the movie shouldn't have had any extra things added in that wasn't in the book. I don't really think im nitpicking because LODR is an obvious masterpiece.
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
kingronan

Welcome to the forum.

Yes the movie dropped about four or more chapters from the early part of the book, including the chapter you are currently reading and the next couple also. A lot of what you mention has been discussed here. I would suggest you browse some of the threads a while, but you might want to also think about finishing the books first because reading the threads on the forum are going to tell you a lot that you haven't read yet. This might be particularly dissapointing to you when things are discussed from the second and third books of the trilogy. Please do not take this as a discouragement of involvement in the forum. It is merely a warning that you are going to hear lots of things here that may spoil surprises for you as you read the books.

Welcome to the world of Middle Earth.
 

Kuduk

Middle-earther
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Location
By the Great Sea
Welcome, kingronan.

I'm glad you're enjoying the books so much. As you will see, those differences you've noted are just the tip of the iceberg.

By the way, did the movie make you want to read the book or were you already planning on reading it anyway?

Oh, and a word to the wise: From my small amount of surfing on this forum, I would avoid the word 'mistakes' when comparing the book and the movie unless you plan on arousing some passions. 'Differences' and 'changes' will come across more diplomatic.;)
 

Matiage

Registered User
Joined
Dec 29, 2001
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
between here and there
Just a quick question: were you able to read the whole book at one three hour sitting?

If not, you should expect changes in the story while being adapted to the screen from the book.

I read the books twenty years ago, and I didn't recall the theft of fireworks either, but it wasn't a big deal, as I expected some changes to be made in order to give the chararcters some fleshing out that took much longer in the book than the time they could use to do so in the film.


Matiage
 

Foe-Hammer

Registered User
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
985
Reaction score
0
kingronan,

"nitpicking". That is funny as heck! Yes, by all means, browse through some threads and you'll get what I'm talking about.

LOL!

I think you'll find as you read the books, that although there are a lot of adaptations in the movie, all of them are in the spirit of Tolkien's work. I for one am able to still enjoy the books and still very much enjoyed the movie. Most people, 85-90% are able to.

So, keep an open mind and don't let the changes ruin a good movie or the books.
 

WARDNINE

Registered User
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Agreement, here, Foe.
Those books mean the world to me.
Ever since this conversation took place:
Mom: "Read this."
Me: "But I want to go to Tina's and play."
Mom: "I don't really care. Read this. These, my dear, are the greatest books ever written."
Me: "But Moooooooooooom."
Mom: (With finality, and sort of Orc-like) "YOU GO READ THIS NOW, MISSY. RIGHT NOW. NO ARGUMENTS. YOU GET IN YOUR ROOM DON'T YOU GIVE ME THAT LOOK YOU START READING, MISSY."
Nothing can ever compare to those pages. Not ever.
But I buy Tolkien calendars. I'm not comparing, just adding to my collection. ;)
I don't like Led Zep, but I like Ramble On for mentioning Gollum. Plus, Robert Plant named his dog Strider.
In my feeble mind, I always pictured certain things. It's fun to see them on screen.
I loooonged to see them on screen.
Did I think it would compare? Of course not. Just another trinket to add to the collection.
To think a movie could compare would be inviting sorrow. Different artists are at work. JRRT, rest his soul, is gone.
I hope this makes a whole new generation love his work as it was should be loved- not on the screen, but in the quiet of your own home, in a favorite chair, long past midnight, aching at sight of the clock ticking, ticking, knowing that work is just a few hours away, but unable to break the spell of Tolkien.
Tolkien Lover? Sure. Tolkien is my Dinner Guest on that perpetual 'Living or Dead- Anyone to dinner at your house' question. Gone is he, and you cannot undo the majesty of his work. Relax. Enjoy. Those are, after all, YOUR books. MY books. Not a living thing can take that. So make the friggin' movie. Do what you like, within reason. Movies are separate entities than Books.
You screw with the Books, I'll kill ya.
:)
 
K

kingronan

Guest
Thanks for all your advice and all. I wasn't saying the movie was bad or anything... I loved it but I didnt't think stuff should have been added in. By the way does anyone know where you can download a Lord of the Rings font?
 
K

kingronan

Guest
In answer to Kuduk's question I had already started the book when I went to see the movie and I'm hopefullyt going again on Friday!
 

Thrakerzog

Registered User
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
WARDNINE,

Wow. That was the most...

Well stated post I have yet seen.

Thank you for that, it reminded me why I am posting here in the first place. :)
 

chrome_rocknave

Frodo Lives!
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
Mirkwood
Welcome kingronan :D

Just wait until you finish reading FOTR! Then you'll be like "wait...this movie was based on JRRT's book?!?" j/k :rolleyes:
 

Arda

Kingdom of Earth
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
Flemington, NJ
.

I totally hear what you are saying, there are a lot of things from the book that were left out for the movies. But the way Peter Jackson did things was to keep it from being a 50 hour movie. On the big screen I really don't think Tom Bombadil would be that interesting to people who never read the book and they would probably loose interest. I probably would too, it's unecessary and unfortunetly you can't elaborate nearly as much in a move as they do in the books.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Arda said:
....the way Peter Jackson did things was to keep it from being a 50 hour movie.
OK, so he had to leave a lot of the book OUT in order to do that.
So why did he invent a whole lot of stuff of his own and put that IN??
 

e.Blackstar

wanderer, not lost
Joined
May 31, 2002
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
5
Location
Minnesota, USA
excellent point, Joxy. If he'd cut out some of his own junk, he would have had room for the real stuff.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
The biggest problem to my mind was not what was left out - or even what was put in - but rather, what was changed! By "rewriting" the persona of so many of the characters either from the beginning (Aragorn) or in the last film (Gandalf), Jackson destroyed much of the true meaning of the story. In one example alone, the virtues of humility and service became the weakness of vacillation and the rejection of duty.

Through such changes was LOTR made into a modern "action adventure" film trilogy, filled with visual glory but superficial and eminently forgettable - at least for me.
 
G

greypilgrim

Guest
Peter Jackson (ultimately) put his own spin on the story and ruined anybody else's chance at making this movie the way it should have been made. Elves at Helm's Deep...Bah. Sickening.
 

Gothmog

Lord of Balrogs
Staff member
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
158
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
greypilgrim said:
Peter Jackson (ultimately) put his own spin on the story and ruined anybody else's chance at making this movie the way it should have been made. Elves at Helm's Deep...Bah. Sickening.
I don't think that Peter Jackson has "ruined anybody else's chance at making this movie the way it should have been made." Though it will take someone with vision and courage to do it differently.

What I think is the problem with PJ's version of the story is that Tolkien started with and understood "Mythology". He used the bones of mythology to support his stories. PJ unfortunatly did not have this understanding of Myth.
 

Sephiroth

Registered User
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Gothmog said:
What I think is the problem with PJ's version of the story is that Tolkien started with and understood "Mythology". He used the bones of mythology to support his stories. PJ unfortunatly did not have this understanding of Myth.
Exactly.

I think PJ is a very capable director - but a lousy storyteller. It really seems as if he can't see beyond "drama" and/or "excitement", it's like he doesn't know or doesn't think "subtlety" can work so he just loads the movie with blatant ploys to try and work the viewer up.

What's weird is that this doesn't seem to be the case with Fellowship, that movie (whether true to the books or not) really 'flows' all the way to the end - whereas both TTT and RotK hit it's bumps in the road and even hit brick walls after a while!

Jackson and Fran Walsh? really seem to think staying true to the books is 'a gift and a curse', in turn that becomes a 'gift and a curse' for the viewer.

Whereas it's refreshing and interesting to view the more subtle changes (Boromirs death, Sam etc) it's absolutely horrible to have to sit through some major ones (Aragorn from hidden king to reluctant king, Frodo sending Sam away etc), it's like they can't view the 'bigger picture' of some of the alterations they've put in.

But i digress..
 

Sammyboy

I know nothing, nothing!!
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
The Shires (Well, Staffordshire!)
The bits that PJ 'made up' I believe were put in to help explain or include bits of the book that weren't in the film, if you get my meaning. He put in 10 minutes of his stuff, instead of say a part of the book that would have taken up a couple of hours of film time.

I bet no film director could exactly replicate the book, unless they made it over 10 or 15 films (which may be great for the purists, but would probably flop at the cinema - and sadly that's what motivates many in the movie business - profit :( ). It's more of a compromise - overall, PJ did a pretty good job of the books - but NO film version of a book will ever be better, especially a Tolkien book.
 

renegadedog

Registered User
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
I think what you mean is, no film version of a classic book will ever be better than it.

There are plenty of films that are seen as great films in their own right which are based on books which are either unknown or not of any great renown:

Shawshank Redemption
Planet of the Apes (original)
LA Confidential
FIght Club

being 4 that sprang immediately to mind.
 

Thread suggestions

Top